Dean v. Smith
2017 IL App (1st) 170404
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Deyon L. Dean filed nominating petitions and a statement of candidacy in Dec. 2016 to run as an independent for Village President of Riverdale and timely submitted petitions with over 500 signatures.
- Objectors (Passmore and Cunningham) challenged the petitions under 10 ILCS 5/10-8, alleging (1) signature defects and (2) that the petitions failed to disclose Dean’s status as an independent, causing voter confusion.
- The objectors withdrew signature-sufficiency challenges after Dean admitted to at least 70 valid signatures; 13 affidavits claimed signers would not have signed if they knew Dean was an independent.
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board sustained the objection, concluding that sections 10-3 and 10-4 required an independent candidate to be identified as such on nominating papers, and ordered Dean off the ballot.
- The Cook County circuit court affirmed; Dean appealed. This court expedited the appeal, reversed the lower courts, and ordered Dean’s name placed on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Dean's Argument | Board/Objectors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sections 10-3 and 10-4 require an independent candidate to state "independent" on nominating petitions | Dean: Neither 10-3 nor 10-4 expressly requires listing independent status; his petitions met statutory requirements | Board/Objectors: Reading 10-3 and 10-4 together implies independent status must appear; failure created a generic (invalid) candidacy and voter confusion | Court: Reversed — statutes do not require stating "independent" on nominating petitions; Board erred in striking name |
| Whether the Board properly relied on voter affidavits to find lack of substantial compliance | Dean: Not reached after statutory interpretation success; alternatively argued substantial compliance | Board/Objectors: Affidavits show voter confusion, so substantial compliance not met | Court: Unnecessary to resolve after finding no statutory requirement; did not decide substantial compliance issue |
| Whether appellate relief should include voiding absentee/early ballots or ordering a special election | Dean: Sought amendment to request voiding ballots and a special election | Appellees: Opposed (lack of briefing and late addition) | Court: Denied amendment — new disenfranchisement remedies were undeveloped and untimely |
| Standard of review for interpretation of electoral board decision | Dean: De novo review applicable to statutory interpretation | Appellees: Argued for "clearly erroneous" (mixed question) | Court: De novo review applied for statutory interpretation; interpreted 10-3 and 10-4 as legal questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Tully v. Edgar, 171 Ill.2d 297 (Ill. 1996) (fundamental voting rights require vigilant protection)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill.2d 200 (Ill. 2008) (electoral boards are administrative agencies; standards for review)
- Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236 (Ill. 2016) (statutory language controls; courts may not read in exceptions)
- Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (appellate courts will not research or develop undeveloped arguments for parties)
- Cement Masons Pension Fund, Local 803 v. William A. Randolph, Inc., 358 Ill. App. 3d 638 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (courts cannot supply omissions or create new statutory provisions under guise of interpretation)